Page 10  |  <<   | >>  |

News $ Views

Law &
Jurisprudence

Administrative
Issuances

Trust Products
& Practice

About the Guru

Links

Email Feedback

Guest Register

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The witness, Your Honor, already promised that she should be able to retrieve it from the external officer and to bring the documents here.

SEN. ROCO: To bring the documents, and...

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: External who?

SEN. DRILON: Counsel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: External counsel, and they should be able to bring the documents here. So the issuance of the subpoena duces tecum will not be necessary.

SEN. ROCO: Okay. Can I then just use up two minutes and then I'll ask to look at those documents and continue with my...

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: You would want to make a reservation about the documents until tomorrow when she will be able to produce the documents?

SEN. ROCO: No. But before that, there are some questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: You may proceed.

SEN. ROCO: Yes, so if I can have a look at them later on. You did mention a conversation held between you and Atty. Chua early December?

MS. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. ROCO: What happened in that conversation?

MS. OCAMPO: I mentioned earlier that he just came to my office unannounced asking about the documents and where they were. I just mentioned that they are still intact definitely because that account is still outstanding, and I mentioned that I have submitted them to senior management.

SEN. ROCO: And what else did he say?

MS. OCAMPO: Then he mentioned what is management going to do about this, and I said... Well, I just mentioned that it's being discussed, but, of course, what management was doing was actually to outline exactly who is going to be presented and then reviewing all the consistency, the transaction of the trust, the documentation of trust and the bank paper. And then he mentioned, because I was not discussing anything about, let's say, suppression. I really don't know what he meant, but he just said: "I hope that your direction is to protect the President."

SEN. ROCO: Did he use the word "suppression"?

MS. OCAMPO: No, no. He didn't mention anything but he just said...Because I did not discuss any scheme. Because he said, "What are you doing?" I did not discuss any scheme. So he just mentioned: "I hope that you are doing something to protect the President."

SEN. ROCO: So this was early December of ... Can you try to recall-was it December 1, 4, 7? What do you recall?

MS. OCAMPO: I can't really recall. I didn't calendar it?

SEN. ROCO: But in any event you remember December 11.

MS. OCAMPO: Yes.

SEN. ROCO: When you went to the office-the law office.

MS. OCAMPO: That was 13.

SEN. ROCO: Ah, 13?

MS. OCAMPO: 11 was the signing in the bank.

SEN. ROCO: December 11.

MS. OCAMPO: There were certain documents already signed in the bank.

SEN. ROCO: By...Dichaves?

MS. OCAMPO: By Jaime Dichaves. That's why I met him.

SEN. ROCO: What were these documents?

MS. OCAMPO: The signature card, the investment guidelines and the directional letter of investment.

SEN. ROCO: This will be a duplicate of all the things we have marked as exhibits?

MS. OCAMPO: Yes, Sir.

SEN. ROCO: So there will be a complete replication of all these documents signed by Dichaes?

MS. OCAMPO: Yes, Sir.

SEN. ROCO: I see. And was there any conversation between you and Dichaves?

MS. OCAMPO: No, I don't..Well, he asked me: "Is William paying? Is he updated? And I said: "Yes".

SEN. ROCO: William. Referring to whom?

MS. OCAMPO: Mr. Gatchalian.

SEN. ROCO: Okay. Is Mr. Dichaves, by any chance, in the courtroom?

MS. OCAMPO: I don't see. No.

SEN. ROCO: No, you don't see him. Now, in the December 13 discussion, who were in the room? I know you already mentioned that Atty. Mendoza was there. But who else was there?

MS. OCAMPO: There were two. I could see two...When the door was opened there were two men. Their backs were against the door...the walls. So I didn't know. But I saw one-Mr. Dichaves. And there was Mr. Go in the room as well and Atty. Mendoza. But it was not fully opened-the door-so I don't know if there were other people.

SEN. ROCO: But you were...never entered.

MS. OCAMPO: No, I never entered.

SEN. ROCO: It would not therefore be surprising for the counsels of the Defense, or what you know or what you went to the bank for, would not have been a source of surprise for counsels for the Defense?

MS. OCAMPO: I really don't...If they were surprised that I was there?

SEN. ROCO: Yes. Would they be surprised about what you know?

MS. OCAMPO: I really don't know if they were surprised.

SEN. ROCO: But would they be surprised seeing you here?

MS. OCAMPO: I don't know if they were surprised seeing me here.

SEN. ROCO: Would they be surprised about what you know?

MS. OCAMPO: The Dichaves document was signed in the office of Atty. Mendoza. So I suppose they're not surprised that...

SEN. ROCO: Yes. They might not be surprised. Now, my two minutes. Since the Chief Justice has been sustaining your expertise in banking, let me read a ruling on Banco Filipino vs. Purisima. It was written by eminent justice, Justice Narvasa. It says, and I'll ask you:

The inquiry into illegally acquired property or property not legitimately acquired extend to cases where such property is concealed by being held by or recorded in the name of other persons.

Are you familiar with this bank ruling?

MS. OCAMPO: No, I'm not.

SEN. ROCO: But it seems to be a good ruling?

MS. OCAMPO: Yes.

SEN. ROCO: Yes. The only other question...

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Was that intended to elicit an answer from the witness?

SEN. ROCO: No. maybe a rhetoric, Mr. Chief Justice. In any event, it has been answered.

Is there any law that required that an IMA account must be notarized?

MS. OCAMPO: The trust regulations, that's MB 1065, I understand, in my recollection, under Section 1411, is silent on that. So it need not be notarized.

SEN. ROCO: Yes. As a matter of fact there is no bank regulation by BSP that requires notarization of IMA accounts.

MS. OCAMPO: Yes.

SEN. ROCO: Thank you very much. As a matter of fact, there is no bank regulation by BSP that requires notarization of IMA accounts.

x x x x x

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: So, you have reservation.

The Chair would now recognize the honorable Senate President-Judge for some questions too.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT: Very briefly, Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. Ocampo, kindly look at Exhibit "XXX." This letter is addressed to Ms. Bagsit and it says: "This is to authorize you to debit my SA/CA No. ... maintained with your branch in the amount of P500 million credit my Trust Account No.... representing my initial contribution."

What I would like to find out is, was this covered by the issuance of any check in addition to this letter of authorization?

MS. OCAMPO: On the basis of this instruction, there should have been just credit to trust, a credit of the funds. So, from the bank proper, they will just credit the trust account number. That is the essence of the instruction letter, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT: Where would those documents be now, Ms. Ocampo?

MS. OCAMPO: The implementation documents would be with the bank.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT: Would you be able to access those and retrieve them for us also along with the documents that you promised us?

MS. OCAMPO: I will talk to the bank proper officers.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT: Please do that.

Now, lastly, when Mr.Dichaves, you said, signed the signature cards on December 11, 2000, was that the correct impression of mine that he signed on December 11?

MS. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT: Did he sign "Jose Velarde?"

MS. OCAMPO: He signed as "Jaime Dichaves."

THE SENATE PRESIDENT: So, he used his complete name and full name then.

MS. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you, too.

The honorable Senator-Judge Defensor Santiago.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: Mrs. Witness, did you go to school with President Estrada?

MS. OCAMPO: No.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: Did you work with him in any capacity?

MS. OCAMPO: No, Ma'am, except for this transaction we handled.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: Would you describe yourself as a close friend or even just a close acquaintance of the President?

MS. OCAMPO: I'm not close to him at all.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: Not at all.

MS. OCAMPO: We just went there for the signing, Ma'am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: Is that the only time you came face to face with President Estrada?

MS. OCAMPO: Yes, Ma'am.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: The one and only time in your life you came face to face and the President of the Philippines sat down and signed on a document using an alias involving P500 million. That is the story you are telling. Isn't that so?

MS. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: Thank you.

Let me proceed to another question. You don't have to answer this question if you don't know what the answer is. That would be perfectly acceptable.

Do you know that there is a common practice in Philippine politics for big business, especially corporate executives, to give so-called campaign contributions after a President has been proclaimed as having won the presidential election. If you don't know because of lack of background, that is also acceptable. You may say, "I don't know."

MS. OCAMPO: I do not know.

SEN. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO: Well, when President Estrada... isn't that an interesting question though. It make syou think of all our past presidents and how much they must have received the moment they proclaimed themselves as elected by the Filipino people, and particularly thinking of 1992.

But let me go on to the next question. You said you were only one foot away and the President, without his ballpen or whatever pen he was using, then signed and affixed his name to the document using an alias, an act which is criminal under the Penal Code and under the Anti-Alias Law. That is your version. Isn't that so?

|   TOP  |  HOME  |  Page  1,  2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,  9,  11 | < | > |